click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5
issues in difficult american foreign policy. when do we get involved in an atrocity going on within someone else's country. that's a very tough question. would we have intervened in germany in 1938 if we knew what was going on. i think we all like to say we we d have and if we could, would have stopped it. it presupposes and the implication is we have a right do that anywhere in the world if there's an atrocity going on. that a u reflect on little bit? >> thank you, senator. defined one t significant kpant issue -- of militaryal basis intervention in the country. certainly every nation has a themselves in t their own history of self-defense. but to answer your question, you of the dimensions of his that you laid out, as did amplify on psey who cuts back ations and on the quell, when do we do this. what basis? we canthere a frame work follow? y answer is you start with the realities. these are both imperfect different situations. out, i dempsey laid think, rather clearly some of he dimensions of each of the countries in that region. self-interest. you have others who have self-inter
with u.s. foreign policy by including them in the program? >> yes, but i am not in favor of waiting standards to do it. been whatndard has you described, which is a 3% rejection rate. some countries go slightly beyond that because there is not the uniform standard applied by embassies throughout the world. some embassies have more liberal policy with regard to applications. instead of outsourcing decision making, would you like to see in touch with regards to diplomatic and security and economic considerations? >> i would have to review that. there are several established criteria and the act with respect to the current standards. the government provides a reciprocal visa waivers. the government issues secure machine readable passports. the government certifies the program to incorporate biometric identification into their passports. the government reports the thefts of blank passports. that they maintained a low immigrant refusal rate. that they maintain less than 2% projection for travel for non- immigrant applicants. those are the standards and the current law. you guys have the
by foreign governments. the cia recognized this in an internal review and acknowledged many of the interrogation techniques were inconsistent with the public policy positions the united states has taken regarding human rights. the united states is understandably subject to criticism when they criticize another nation for engaging in torture and the unjustified same conduct under national security arguments. there are those that defend the techniques of waterboarding, stress positions and sleep deprivation because there was the office of legal counsel which issued a decision of proving of their use because they defined them as not being tortured. those opinions have since been repudiated by legal experts and even if its opinion it relies on a very legal definition of torture but also on factual representations about how the techniques of would be implemented that later proved inaccurate. this is an important context as to how the opinion came about but also as to how policy makers rely upon it. based upon a faeroe view of the available public record we determined that an appl
characterized the treatment as torture when used by foreign governments. the c.i.a. recognized this in an internal review and realized many of the interrogation techniques employed were contrary with the policy the u.s. has taken regarding human rights. the united states is understandably subject to criticism when it criticizes another nation for engaging in torture and then justifies the same conduct under national security arguments. there are those that defend the techniques like waterboarding, stress positions, and sleep deprivation because there was the office of legal council which issued a decision approving of their use because they defined them as not being torture. those decisions have since been repudiated by the o.l.c. it's sefment even in it's peap it relies not only on a narrow definition of torture but also on factual representation about how the techniques would be implemented that later proved inaccurate. this is important context as to how the opinion came about, but also as to how policymakers relied upon it. based upon a thorough review of the available reco
by foreign governments. the cia recognized this in an internal review and acknowledged that many of the interrogation techniques it employed were inconsistent with the public policy positions the united states has taken regarding human rights. the united states is understandably subject to criticism when it criticizes another nation for engaging in torture and then justifies the same conduct under national security arguments. there are those that defend the techniques like waterboarding, stress positions and sleep deprivation because there was the office of legal counsel which issued a decision approving of their use because they defined them as not being torture. those opinions have since been repudiated by legal experts and the olc itself. and even in its opinion it relied not only on a very narrow legal definition of torture, but also on factual representations about how the techniques would be implemented that later proved inaccurate. this is an important context as to how the opinion came about but also as to how policymakers relied upon it. based upon a thorough review of t
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5